NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC.

, v MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES-PHILIPPINE

VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE
GR No. 187587, 5 Jun 2013
Sereno, CJ.

Nature: Petition to Review on certiorari of the decision of CA (Consolidated Petitions)

FACTS:
On 12 Jul 1957, Pres. Garcia through Proclamation No. 423, reserved parcels of land in Pasig, Taguig, Paranaque,
Rizal and Pasay for military reservation (Fort William McKinley later renamed Fort Bonifacio). On 28 May 1967. the
Pres. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208 amending 423, which excluded certain area of Fort Bonifacio and reserved
it for a national shrine (Libingan ng mga Bayani under the administration of respondent Military Shrine
Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office or MSS-PVAO). Proclamation No.423 was further amended on 7 Jan 1986
through the issuance of Proclamation No.2467 which excluded barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal
Village from the operation of 423 and declared it open for disposition under the provisions of RA Nos. 274 and 730. At
the bottom of the said proclamation, Marcos made a handwritten addendum which reads: PS- This includes
Western Bicutan (SGD).

Problem started when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in OG on 3 Feb 1986 without the handwritten addendum.
Later on, on 16 Oct 1987, Pres. C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 which substantially reiterated Proclamation
No. 2476, as published, but this time excluded Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation No.
423 and declared the said lots open for disposition under the provisions of R.A. 274 and 730. Memo Order No.119 was
issued on the same day implementing No.172.

When informal settlers increased and occupied some areas of Fort Bonifacio including portions of Libingan ng mga
Bayani, General Order No. 1323 creating Task Force Bantay (TFB) primarily to prevent further unauthorized
occupation and to cause the demolition of illegal structures.

On 27 Aug 1999, members of petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sition Masigasig Inc (NMSMI) filed a petition with
the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) praying for:
(1) the reclassification of the areas they occupied, covering Lot 3 of SWO-13-000- 298 of Western Bicutan, from
public land to alienable and disposable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476;
(2) the subdivision of the subject lot by the Director of Lands; and
(3) the Land Management Bureau’s facilitation of the distribution and sale of the subject lot to its bona fide
occupants.
On the other hand, on 1 Sept 200o, petitioner Western Bicutan Lot Owners Assoc. Inc (WBLOAI) filed a
Petition-in-Intervention praying for the same reliefs with regard to the area that they occupied covering Lot 7 in Western
Bicutan.

On 1 Sep 2006, COSLAP issued a Resolution granting the petition and declaring the parts of land in question alienable
and disposable, with Assoc.Comm Lina dissenting. It ruled that the handwritten addendum of P.Marcos was part of
PNo. 2467. The intention of the President could not be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others. Further,
considering that Proclamation No. 2476 was done while the former President was exercising legislative powers, it could
not be amended, repealed or superseded, by a mere executive enactment. Thus, Proclamation No. 172 could not have
superseded much less displaced Proclamation No. 2476, as the latter was issued on October 16, 1987 when President
Aquino’s legislative power had ceased.

Respondent filed a MR but the same was denied by COSLAP. On its petition with CA, the court granted the petition
reversing and setting aside the resolutions issued by the COSLAP. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the subject lots were not alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2467 on the ground that
the handwritten addendum of Pres. Marcos was not included in the publication of the said law.

RULING: YES, the subject lots were not alienable and disposable since the handwritten addendum was not included
when Proclamation No. 2467 was published in the OG. The handwritten addendum has no force and effect of law.

Considering that petitioners were occupying Lots 3 and 7 of Western Bicutan (subject lots), their claims were anchored
on the handwritten addendum of President Marcos to Proclamation No. 2476. They allege that the former President
intended to include all Western Bicutan in the reclassification of portions of Fort Bonifacio as disposable public land
when he made a notation just below the printed version of Proclamation No. 2476. However, it is undisputed that the
handwritten addendum was not include when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette. The
resolution of whether the subject lots were declared as reclassified and disposable lies in the determination of whether
the handwritten addendum of President Marcos has the force and effect of law.

In relation thereto, Article 2 of the Civil Code expressly provides: ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take
effect one year after such publication. Under the above provision, the requirement of publication is indispensable to
give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase “unless otherwise provided” refers to a
different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s publication in the Official
Gazette, but does not imply that the requirement of publication may be dispensed with.

This Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without
publication, the note never had any legal force and effect. Furthermore, under Section 24, Chapter 6, Book I of the
Administrative Code, “[t]he publication of any law, resolution or other official documents in the Official Gazette shall be
prima facie evidence of its authority.” Thus, whether or not President Marcos intended to include Western Bicutan is not
only irrelevant but speculative. Simply put, the courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature
apart from the words appearing in the law. This Court cannot rule that a word appears in the law when, evidently, there
is none. In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Hon. Trajano, 310 SCRA 354 (1999), we ruled that “[u]nder Article 8 of the Civil
Code, ‘[j]udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines.’ This does not mean, however, that courts can create law. The courts exist for interpreting the law, not for
enacting it. To allow otherwise would be violative of the principle of separation of powers, inasmuch as the sole function
of our courts is to apply or interpret the laws, particularly where gaps or lacunae exist or where ambiguities becloud
issues, but it will not arrogate unto itself the task of legislating.” The remedy sought in these Petitions is not judicial
interpretation, but another legislation that would amend the law to include petitioners’ lots in the reclassification.

DISPOSITION: The instant petitions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of CA is AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, this Court’s status quo order dated 17 June 2009 is hereby LIFTED. Likewise, all pending motions to cite
respondent in contempt is DENIED, having been rendered moot.

NOTES:
Dissenting Opinion of Assoc.Comm. Lina: Pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code, publication is indispensable in every
case. Likewise, she held that when the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous so that there is no occasion for
the court to look into legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or subtraction. Finally,
she maintained that the Commission had no authority to supply the addendum originally omitted in the published
version of Proclamation No. 2476, as to do so would be tantamount to encroaching on the field of the legislature.

Take note of Tanada v Tuvera ruling. The ruling was also mentioned here.